New Search
MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> From: LIDZ Jerome <br /> To: MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> Subject: Tree preservation ordinance <br /> Date: Wednesday, February 25, 1998 11:07AM <br /> Johnny, <br /> Joan is in the process of making a few final changes and will e-mail the revised and hopefully final version of the <br /> ordinance to you shortly. <br /> A brief explanation of why I think the criteria for street tree felling permits don't apply well to the new chapter 6 <br /> standards for private property: First, in general they are inconsistent with the "minimum necessary" standard. If <br /> we're saying that the standard is that a property owner can fell trees that are necessary to implement the <br /> development plan, but no more, then factors like plans to plant new trees or the effect on scenic values and habitat <br /> are not relevant any more. It's a level of review that doens't fit with the straightforward standard in 6.315. Second, <br /> I worry that we'd be asking the arborist to perform a governmental function: instead of just having him certify to a <br /> fact ( "minimum necessary... ") -- although, admittedly, a "fact" that's a professional judgment - -, we'd be asking him <br /> to weigh a number of factors and make a policy judgment that's really outside of his sphere of responsibility and <br /> expertise. Finally, inserting that much judgment into the process will either require more staff review or will lead to <br /> inconsistent results, with the likelihood of more public involvement to debate the arborist's judgment. Granted, <br /> those concerns don't disappear entirely with the more objective approach in 6.315, but they should play less of a <br /> role. <br /> Please let me know it you have questions or comments on the revised draft. Thanks much for your help and <br /> your patience. <br /> Page 1 <br />